User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2015/December

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If

If you're curious about the history, MEDRS disallows "personal objections" to funding sources because of empirical results. We have had people try to disallow meta-analyses and other review articles on the grounds that these reviews included studies with funding sources that the editor disapproved of. Those editors tend to be unusually extreme POV pushers, and the result tends to be extraordinarily biased articles. For example, we had one person try to disallow all peer-reviewed articles from surgeons, in an article about a surgery, on the grounds that the surgeons made money from doing the surgery.

When we "accept" sources despite funding (or, more precisely, refuse to reject them merely because an editor is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), then the result is usually much more balanced article, e.g., "Industry says X, but critics say Y" rather than "Critics say Y, and nothing else matters." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, yes I am very interested in all of the history, thank you for that and I apologize about the delayed response. I've been traveling and spending time with family, but I'm sure you know half of Wikipedia shuts down at this time of year anyway! I suppose you already realize my concern about industry funded sources showing statistical increases efficacy versus non by now, so there's no reason for me to belabor that point. I can see the reason wording needed to be placed there in the first place. And you might not realize it, but we had similar issues with Chinese studies where unusually extreme POV pushers actually rejected Cochrane Reviews partly on the basis that they had Chinese authors! Even Doc James has said that's wrong. I have always supported the idea that, just as"Industry says X, but critics say Y" rather than "Critics say Y, and nothing else matters," we should also say "Chinese studies say X, but Western studies say Y" (when there is a difference between them) in order to achieve the same balance and robustness on our articles. Proving the reader with as much information as possible to make up their own mind is never a bad thing, provided that we actually provide ALL the information. LesVegas (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be desirable to note the contrast between Western and Chinese studies. We probably differ in how to present that, though: I would say "Chinese studies say X, but Western studies say Y, and statistical experts believe that the discrepancy is largely due to Chinese institutions refusing to publish results that are politically unpopular with the Chinese government". Since, as you know, we can easily source the reason for (most of) the difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly if a statement like that is actually backed up by sources I would have no problem with it. We're probably not as far apart as you might think. So I take it, WhatamIdoing that you're no longer opposed to country of origin being an exclusionary factor then? LesVegas (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I do oppose adding those words to that particular point in the guideline.

I believe that adding those words would result in more disputes and more confusion than omitting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You gave a good reason funding sources should be included in the language, but I'm frankly not sure how you can support "funding sources" being included for the very same reasons "country of origin" should be included, yet want to omit that. Especially when there's been documented problems, just as there were with editors rejecting based on who the sugar daddy was funding research. But that's ok, everyone has some latent opinions an even though you still haven't expressed what yours are, I do believe everyone is entitled to their partialities in this world. It would just be nice to have rules and guidelines that are impartial and show no favoritism towards select groups, is all I'm saying. LesVegas (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox language

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox language. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caste system in India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caste system in India. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)